Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 391 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ambaram

2010-04-05

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2010
Judgment ( 1. ) The learned Dy. Advocate General Shri Desai on behalf of the applicant/State submits that the Court had suo moto issued notices to respondent/applicant Ambaram for cancellation of bail granted to him by the trial Court. This Court had on 11/3/2010 also directed the registeration of a separate MCrC for cancellation of bail and in consequence the counsel states that the order passed by the learned Judge of the lower Court on 25/1/2010 is bad in law since it has been passed without giving any reasons. Counsel stated that the learned Judge of the lower Court seems to be carried away by the fact that the marriage of the deceased sisters and the sons of Ambaram had taken place for almost 8 years prior to their death on 27/7/09 and hence the offence u/S. 304B of the IPC could not be made out against any of the accused. Counsel also stated that in the order dated 25.1.2010 when the learned Judge had made a categoric observation that the father-in-law and present respondent/applicant Ambaram had tried to molest both the girls time and again and both the sisters Preeti and Sheetal were frustrated and depressed because of their sexual exploitaion and they had swallowed the pesticide to end their ordeal. Then at the time of granting bail in the same order of the learned Judge has in a single line only observed that all the accused were exonerated under section 304B of the IPC, but the offence under section 306 of the IPC could be made out and since the husband of Sheetal, the co-accused and son Santosh was a blind person, he deserved to be enlarged on bail along with the accused Ambaram. Then such contradictory stand by the learned Judge of the lower Court was not at all justified or called for under the circumstances and counsel for the State prayed for cancellation of bail granted to accused Ambaram. ( 2. ) Counsel for the respondent/applicant Ambaram on the other hand has stated that the XII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore had granted bail to the applicant Ambaram on 25.01.2010 in Sessions Case No. 1146/09, after considering all the circumstances along with co-accused Santosh the son of the applicant and husband of the deceased. ( 2. ) Counsel for the respondent/applicant Ambaram on the other hand has stated that the XII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore had granted bail to the applicant Ambaram on 25.01.2010 in Sessions Case No. 1146/09, after considering all the circumstances along with co-accused Santosh the son of the applicant and husband of the deceased. Counsel averred that marriage of the sons of the present respondent/applicant with the two sisters deceased Preeti and Sheetal had taken place almost 8 years prior to the death and hence offence under Section 304B of the IPC would not be made out against all the accused and hence the learned Judge of the lower Court had exonerated all of them and granted bail to the accused son Santosh since he was also blind and had also gratned bail to the present applicant Ambaram after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 3. ) Counsel further submitted that suicide notes allegedly written by two sisters Preeti and Sheetal were not reliable and highly susceptible. There was lot of overwriting on the suicide notes and they were almost identical in their contents. Moreover, their marriage was solemnized on 8.5.2002 whereas the incident had occurred on 27.7.09.Moreover, the suicide notes were also very vague and there were no specific allegations regarding the cruelty meted out to the deceased sisters by the present applicants. Counsel also prayed that cancellation was not called for in the instant case because grant of bail was purely discretionary and the learned Judge of lower Court has exercised his discretion which is subjective in nature. ( 4. ) The counsel also vehemently argued that considering all the circumstances since there was no misuse of liberty and the accused Ambaram had been attending on all dates set by the Court, it did not call for cancellation for bail granted to them earlier. Counsel relied on two judgments to reinforce his submissions along with the reply filed by him on behalf of the accused. Relying on Bhagirathsingh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat 1984 MPWN 277=AIR 1984 Supreme Court 372 counsel stated that the relevant considerations for cancellation of bails were categorically laid down by the apex Court in the said case. It held thus: "Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. Relying on Bhagirathsingh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat 1984 MPWN 277=AIR 1984 Supreme Court 372 counsel stated that the relevant considerations for cancellation of bails were categorically laid down by the apex Court in the said case. It held thus: "Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. If there is no prima facie case, there is no question of considering other circumstances. But even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence." ( 5. ) He also relied on Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v/s State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 2890 to reinforce the fact that the bail can be cancelled only on the ground when the appellant has misused the liberty granted to him earlier. Counsel stated that such eventuality had not existed in the present case. ( 6. ) Considering the above submissions I find that the learned Judge of the lower Court has passed the order granting bail to accused Ambaram despite there being overwhelming evidence in the suicide notes of both the deceased sisters against him. However, it could be necessary to consider the factual background of the case. Two sisters Preeti and Sheetal were married with two brothers of the respondent/applicant Ambaram. From the suicide notes, it is discernible that both the sisters were being taken advantage of by the father-in- law as well as the mother-in-law as they came from the lower strata of the society. Two sisters Preeti and Sheetal were married with two brothers of the respondent/applicant Ambaram. From the suicide notes, it is discernible that both the sisters were being taken advantage of by the father-in- law as well as the mother-in-law as they came from the lower strata of the society. Both the sisters have stated that they were working and handed over j their pay to father-in-law despite which they are always harassed and subjected to physical and mental torture by the father-in-law present respondent/applicant Ambaram and there are allegations against the mother-in-law Rajkumari wife of Ambaram that she was also used to physically torture and beat them. The unfortunate part is that the sisters were beaten as well as physically and mentally harassed for almost 8 years and the sister-in-law also named Sheetal used to turture them for dowry and money despite living separately. It is a sad story of physical abuse as is emergent from the suicide notes that were thrown into the police station at Chhatripura, Indore and after consuming poison by both the sisters, they died during the treatment in the hospital. Moreover, the statements of the witnesses also clearly indicated that both the sisters used to be beaten by their husbands. The father-in-law and mother-in-law and the suicide notes indicated that the mother-in-law also participated in the physically beatings given to the daughters-in-law. ( 7. ) Another important point raised by counsel for the respondents/applicants is that the sister-in-law Sheetal was granted bail by this Court in MCrC No. 6216/2009 on 9.9.2009 and on the same set of circumstances, both the present accused were also entitled to grant of bail. I find that such is not a case since the sister-in-law has been granted bail only on the ground that she has taken her two small children aged 1 1/2 years and 5 months to jail and more importantly she was living separately in mess as well as residence from the deceased and the allegations of dowry could not be prima facie established. ( 8. ) Whereas in the case of the mother-in-law and father-in-law, I find that there are categoric accusations in the suicide notes against the father-in-law Ambaram. Both the deceased sisters have noted down that he used to always molest them and they are fed up of the situation and hence they were taking the crucial step. ( 8. ) Whereas in the case of the mother-in-law and father-in-law, I find that there are categoric accusations in the suicide notes against the father-in-law Ambaram. Both the deceased sisters have noted down that he used to always molest them and they are fed up of the situation and hence they were taking the crucial step. It is unfortunate that this fact has been considered and noted by the learned Judge of the lower Court in the order dated 25/1/2010, despite which; in a single line along with the accused son Santosh, accused Ambaram has also been granted bail. The order has not been supported by any valid or cogent reasons for grant of bail to the accused Ambaram. ( 9. ) In this light Bhagirathsingh (supra) I find that the apex Court has clearly indicated that if there is no prima facie case, there is no question of considering the other cases; but even where a prima facie case is established, bail should not be refused by way of punishment. I find that the same would not be applicable in the present case because if bail was granted to the father-in-law and there are no reasons granted by the trial Judge to justify the rejection of bail to the mother- in-law and sister-in-law Sheetal by the same order. Moreover, the counsel for the applicant Rajkumari in MCrC No. 940/2010 has prayed for grant of bail to her on grounds of parity. ( 10. ) In this anomalous circumstances, I find that the learned Judge of the lower Court has not applied his mind while granting bail to the father-in-law Ambaram. The above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case also do not justifiy the grant of bail to the father-in-law Ambaram and hence the same is hereby cancelled. The reply of the respondent/applicant is without merit. The order granting bail by trial Judge on 25/1/2010 is set aside only to the extent by which bail was allowed to accused Ambaram, rest of the order does not call for interference. Accused Ambaram shall surrender himself before the trial Court on or before 19th April 2010 under intimation to this Court. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. With the aforesaid directions the application is disposed off. The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court immediately for compliance.